May 2007

..the best argument for [Gore] running for President is that a Gore-Obama ticket stands the best chance of bringing 16 years of seasoned sanity to the White House.

I have the campaign slogan ready: “Make it Right, America.” It means, “You know that you elected Gore in 2000, but see what you got instead. Make it Right.” The slogan blurs the moral and partisan meanings of “right” -- just in time for a political realignment beyond “liberal” and “conservative,” even “Democrat” and “Republican.”

But first, let's see how Barack votes on the 'war funding' bill now before the congress, perhaps better known as the "Act of Democrat Capitulation" on anything that might actually force Bush's hand in his War of Lies. If Barack votes for the measure, his credibility is seriously damaged with me, if not outright shot.

After the 2006 election, the Democrats had a chance to distance themselves from Bush's war, but as Keith Olbermann says, the whole stinking government has failed us now, and the Democrats assume joint ownership of the fiasco:

This, I think, is what's really needed: something that really stirs the drink. That's why I keep mentioning Ron Paul, because he stirs things up. These guys, in whatever order they choose, would serve the same purpose between both of the current parties, which I see as a dysfunctional duopoly. The speculation is that Bloomberg would run for the top of the ticket because he'd be the one paying for it -- precisely why I think Hagel should be the presidential candidate and let Bloomberg ride in the back (and pump the gas).

Hagel openly hinted about joining the mayor on a high-octane, third-party ticket that could reshape the political landscape and jolt the traditional U.S. two-party system.

A third-party bid would hope to take advantage of public discontent with the Republican and Democratic parties, which already has led 60,000 people to sign up for an Internet-based movement aimed at fielding a bipartisan independent ticket in 2008.

You can definitely count me as part of that "public discontent" with the two existing parties.

The Unity '08 effort, led by a group of veteran political strategists from both parties, was inspired by the idea that both parties are dominated by their most extreme elements and a majority of Americans are looking for a centrist approach.

I'm going right over to the Unity08.com website and signing up, soon as I click "save" on this post...

Somebody please tell me, why is that the only guy in these debates who is really making sense, challenging the status quo, and and expressing consistency is a Republican -- and the one they are trying to marginalize at that:

And now we read that some party hack in Michigan thinks Congressman Paul should be barred from inclusion in any future debates, all because he had the audacity to introduce into the discussion some of the findings of the Baker Iraq Study Group (which Giuliani dismissed as "absurd" to the applause of the assembled lemming-tude).

Seems to me that right now, Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party expressing the things that need to be said regardless of the consequences. And for that he is ostracized by his own party. Is there a Democrat demonstrating similar fortitude right now?

I happened upon “Real Time with Bill Maher,” which does its best to slip serious issues into the entertainment format network television requires.

And suddenly, in the midst of a discussion about terrorism, Maher asked his guests (Sean Penn, Gary Shandling and former U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr.), “Isn’t war itself terror?”
What happened next was a moment of excruciating awkwardness, as Ford, a young, Bill Clinton-style Democrat who is current head of the Democratic Leadership Council, acted as though he were backing away from a live grenade. No way, apparently, could he allow himself to be tainted with even cursory agreement with such an observation, yet neither could he, in the climate of near-universal censure of Bush’s Iraq debacle, exactly disagree, so he spun a cocoon of say-nothing politicianspeak around himself, which, in the context of smart-ass political comedy, was almost too painful to watch.

See it with your own disbelieving eyes:

And Koehler concludes:

The war will only end when the ones who oppose it stop compromising with it. This at any rate is the rationale of the upcoming Swarm on Congress, and I have to say I agree. Having witnessed Harold Ford’s quick, sad spectacle of compromise in front of a TV audience that would almost certainly have applauded a show of angry courage, I wonder what it’s going to take to rescue the Democrats from the quagmire of politicianspeak.

This was one of the funniest things I've seen on the TeeVee in a long time. I don't generally watch the Colbert Report in its entirety... I can really only take so much of Steve Colbert, funny and pointed as his commentary is. But when I heard that Jane Fonda was going to be on his show, I fast forwarded (TiVo, of course) to the interview portion and was not disappointed.

Of course, Colbert was also set to assume his faux-wingnut posture with Fonda, but this time, the guest was totally on to him and complete disarmed the host. After the requisite hand-shake greeting across the table, Fonda got out of seat, walked behind the table... and planted herself in Colbert's lap, kissed him deeply on the lips, and then stayed in his lap for the entire six minutes of the interview.

Colbert was completely rattled, and it took about four minutes before he realized that Fonda was NOT going to get out of his lap, and another minute before he finally settles into whatever decorum he could muster for the occasion. Watch it hall here, clip courtesy Comedy Central.com

Damn, those movie stars know how to kiss. It's enough to make a feller wish he had his own talk show.

And, of course, Fonda snuck in the best commentary of the evening: Colbert asked her a question about war protesting. As she
continues to straddle him and kiss his face, she finally responds, "We
cannot elect men to office that are afraid of premature evacuation."

Instead, I'd like to give a nod of appreciation to those 156 Congresspeople and Senators who voted against the AUMF of 2002. This isn't meant to be praise for everything they've ever done, before or since, merely acknowledgment that, on this, they were right when so many were wrong.

Personally, it'd be OK with me if every incumbent Congressperson who voted FOR the authorization were deposed. We could start over with the people on this list.

And don't even start me on the whole cockide idea of authorizing a president to start a war. The constitution says that authority rests solely in the Congress. Dictators and kings are supposed to be the only individuals who can start a war. Unless their name is "Bush."

You can't read this financial newsletter unless you're a subscriber, but here's an excerpt that speaks directly to a broader point. I share the opinion:

I blinked in disbelief when I
read this right on the front page of today's New York Times.
"Washington, May 3: Senator Hillary Clinton proposed Thursday that
Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade
Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate
over financing the war." Russell Comment -- Hillary, it's too late, you
already cowardly and without any debate voted to give Bush the power to
invade Iraq. You can't change that now, the damage is done. Three
thousand American servicemen are dead, a trillion dollars is down the
drain, the war in Iraq is a bloody disaster, and your vote is history.
Hillary, the time for courage and dissent has past. You can't reverse
your vote five years later. Gad, I can't believe this waffling,
goofball lady is running for president in 2008. Help!